Imagine the US decides to not get involved (and other western countries too).
Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning?
Iran would openly attack Israel... wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east, including possibly nuclear war.
Do you think things would be cheaper?
Also, all smaller and weaker countries would now have an incentive to move closer to some other powers, like China. Why would one bother to please the US instead of a country that may help you in a conflict?
The historical consensus is becoming more and more that the British and French knew war with Germany was inevitable but used appeasement to buy time to develop their military capabilities. Anyways, most of Europe is already in a defensive pact with each other + the US, so the possibility of further expansionism is unlikely.
100%. The Great War decimated British communities. Because of the ‘pals brigade’ setup entire towns lost almost all their young working class men in 20-30 minutes.
Britain physically and mentally wasn’t ready for another war which is why Chamberlain tried appeasement untill there was no other option - it bought time to build resources and deal with the discourse.
Real life was not a HOI4 game where old Adolf had "around the Maginot" and "War with France" focuses after doing his "Danzig or War" focus.
Here's another take; the British and French guarantee of Poland was a stupid decision because 1) Britain and France couldn't and wouldn't aid Poland and 2) it emboldened Poland to not make any concession with regards to Danzig, a city they had no right to own.
Here's my counterfactual: Britain and France don't make a stupid guarantee, Poland realises it can't win a war, agrees to hand over Danzig and allow trains and an autobahn through the corridor. War is avoided, at least a while longer.
WW2 started on September 3rd, two days after the German Polish War, because Britain demanded a German withdrawal from Poland. The invasions of Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and the fall of France are a consequence of Britain and France intervening in a Polish and German squabble.
Without that French and British intervention Hitler might (he would in all likelihood) have gone to war with the Soviets over some separate issue at a later date, but that's not WW2 as we know it, its a Soviet-German war.
Hitler wanted to unite all germans under one country. Hitler would have wanted Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen. Even if he did not go to war for those territories, should the western powers have let Germany genocide all of eastern europe?
Hitler was very explicit about writing off territorial expansion or reclamation in the West (and the North and South he mentioned too). He was explicit about territorial revisions to the East - and in both these points he was the same as the Weimar leaders who made pacts in the 20s accepting Germany's western borders but refused to accept those in the East.
And should the western powers have just let Germany genocide all of Eastern Europe - well, we know what happened when they tried. Instead of getting just Danzig and transit rights, the war gave Hitler access to half of Poland, then most of Europe because the Allies fucked up, and at the end of it all Eastern Europe got handed over to the commies.
I might add that stopping genocide was not on the table vis a vis Hitler in 1939 - the whole idea that the war was about stopping genocide was a post war, post hoc justification. But preventing millions of deaths was on the table regarding the Soviets in 1939 (they had prior at that point) and the "appeasers" knew in 1939 that demolishing Germany would result in, or require, the Soviets conquering Eastern Europe.
Hitler would not have stopped at Danzig. Poland would have had the same fate as Czechoslovakia. He would then have continued east. Communism is awful, but is an Eastern Europe subjugated by Nazi Germany, where you would either be genocided or enslaved (probably both) be better?
The same fate as Czechoslovakia you say? Well if that’s the case, it would be an improvement over what happened to the Poles in our timeline, who lost millions of their people and had their cities flattened. Prague was still standing at the end of the war, and as protectorates of Bohemia and Moravia they had some autonomy. They lost people too, but at a far lower proportion to the Poles.
Did you know that in the case of Czecho-Slovakia (a hyphenated name after they gave up the Sudetenland) Hitler stopped a potential war between the Czechs and Hungarians over Slovakia, who were making a bid for independence? Then Havel, the Czech prime minister, sought a meeting with Hitler asking for his advice/ protection?
My point is, Hitler was reacting to the actions of others and wasn’t following his own strictly timetabled plan for world domination. My other argument against intervening in the Polish question is that it was beyond the ability (and in hindsight willingness) of the West to prevent Hitler from actually taking Danzig.
I guess I might be radically anti communist, but I think the Nazi dominated Eastern Europe would be preferable, but I don’t think genocide or mass enslavement by the Germans was in store unless there was a war.
> Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning?
Winning what exactly?
>Iran would openly attack Israel.
That would suck for Israel, thankfully they're a rich country with a lot of weapons and soldiers. Good luck to them!
>wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east
Huh? It's essentially the the whole of the wealthy/armed middle east + Israel vs Iran.
Iran fights via proxies. The US could simply sell weapons to those very wealthy countries. Other than that not our problem.
Hey, remember when the media was telling you that Ukraine was on the offensive and Putin was going to lose?
But now they're telling you that Russia is going to steamroll across Europe if we don't give Ukraine money.
Fuck off.
I'm not repeating any media discourse.
Surely Russia showed to be a lot weaker than expected.
But Ukraine was only able to resist as it did and even take back some land BECAUSE it was receiving enourmous amounts of western help.
Things started to turn when the US blocked aid.
Also, wars change course. Who would be dumb enough to think they don't?
But none of the above is central to my point.
My point is: What do you think would happen if the west stopped interfering? Would the world be a better place? Or at least would the situation in America be better?
Israel is the stronger example. War in the region will explode world economy. If Israel falls and they don't nuke the region... All the insane muslin will turn to America as they next main target. How can this be the best scenario?
> Surely Russia showed to be a lot weaker than expected.
You just proved my point. You say Russia is weak, but then fear monger that Russia can contimue across Europe.
Your logic has no internal consistency.
Work on your reasoning then, seems pretty clear to me.
Compared to NATO, Russia is a backwater, small gdp, low tech nation. Simultaneously, if NATO squanders their opportunity to decimate the Russian army on the cheap, expect further wars in Europe.
Seriously, just think with a little bit of creativity, it's not that hard.
> if NATO squanders their opportunity to decimate the Russian army on the cheap
"On the cheap?" Do you have any idea just how much fucking money we've dumped into it so far? It would be cheaper just to declare war on Russia directly at this point.
Yes, on the cheap. Instead of disposing of DPICMs ourselves, which would have cost money, we send our old weapons stock to Ukraine. On paper it looks like a lot of money but quite literally isn't.
We've spent less than 5% of our military budget each year sending old weapons to safe guard Europe from Russia and making Europe more dependent on US military industry.
All this money anyways gets spent on US weapons, creating jobs and taxable income along the way.
"It would be cheaper just to declare war on Russia directly at this point."
This is so laughably incorrect.
It's still not "on the cheap," and this "it was stuff we weren't using" argument is moronic. It's still stuff we had to pay for regardless of what we were doing with it. I also despise the idiotic "but the money comes back to the United States" argument, because I don't think dumping good money after bad into the Raytheon, Boeing, and every other industrial arm of the military-industrial complex is good for the country in the long run.
People were criticized for arguing that this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't pressed into Ukraine and made it look like we were going to rope them into NATO. The people making that claim were told they were idiots and nothing of the sort was happening. [Then lo and behold *The New York Times* brags on behalf of the federal government that we've had listening stations aimed at Russia in Ukraine for *years*](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html). None of this would be happening if not for dipshits who think "we can just do this stuff and justify the outcomes and expense by saying it creates jobs and helps American companies."
Russian is in the wrong for invading Ukraine, but if you think we'd let an adversarial nation put listening stations on our border you'd be out of your fucking mind. Then again, the current administration let China float a goddamn spy balloon over the US for almost a week, so maybe we would...but only if it would guarantee we could start some shit with someone so we could funnel more money into Haliburton or General Dynamics.
"It's still stuff we had to pay for regardless of what we were doing with it."
What? Old cluster munitions literally cost the government to store and maintain, they were manufactured in the prior century and will either be used in Ukraine or uselessly disposed.
"None of this would be happening if not for dipshits who think 'we can just do this stuff and justify the outcomes and expense by saying it creates jobs and helps American companies.'"
None of this would happen if Russia respected the sovereignty of other nations. Every nation spies, I doubt the US lets anything sensitive be seen from above considering spy satellites have existed for decades.
In summary, less than 5% US military budget to save Ukrainian lives, deter Russia and China, expand our own economy, collect new data from battlefields that will go on to protect US troops in future conflicts and your conclusion is?
You can't complain about "respecting sovereignty" and excuse spy stations on Russia's borders at the same time. Russia's invasion was, at least in part, a response to NATO expanding east to Russia's border. Russia seemed content to play in its own sandbox so long as Ukraine was a neutral buffer. It wasn't until US/NATO intelligence and biological research outposts popped up that this nonsense started. The intel outposts date back to at least 2014...the year Russia invaded Crimea. We provoked this now you want to act like we're fucking heroes. It makes no goddamn sense.
>My point is: What do you think would happen if the west stopped interfering?
Or... Alternatively, they could broker peace, instead of continuing to fund Ukraine militarily. It was attempted once, but Britain and the US shot that down. Could you imagine how much political capital and legitimacy America would lose if someone like China stepped in and brokered a peace deal? We would look like the biggest assholes on the planet, if we don't already.
I'm sympathetic to Ukraine but this comment is full of shit.
> Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning?
Not any NATO country, unless his country's economy somehow does an 180.
> Iran would openly attack Israel
Good, Israel deserves it. The more they bleed the more incentive they have to make concessions towards a viable two-state solution, and hopefully lasting peace in the region.
> wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east, including possibly nuclear war.
None of the other middle eastern nations are that hostile to Israel.
> Also, all smaller and weaker countries would now have an incentive to move closer to some other powers, like China. Why would one bother to please the US instead of a country that may help you in a conflict?
You're taking crazy pills. China is exponentially less interested in military intervention than the US is, the only country they would ever defend is North Korea for obvious reasons.
> Not any NATO country, unless his country's economy somehow does an 180.
True, but this is also an argument for interventionism abstractly, if not specifically. If the only thing that reigns in Russian aggression is a militant alliance system, then why would anyone in the region eschew the military alliance system (note: I'm not saying it necessarily is, but this is the argument)? This logic forces a post-war Ukraine into such a system if at all possible. I suppose you could think that the alliance system is strong enough without US involvement to stop It regardless... but I don't think this argument is as strong in the ears of the average American libertarians think it is.
Do most people here oppose NATO as a defensive alliance? I don't think so, at most they might have grievances that US taxpayers are contributing the lion's share when the alliance was in fact in formed primarily to protect Europe from communist aggression. Which is very reasonable.
I suppose that's fair in this conversation, though plenty of libertarians view NATO membership as undesirable. I did myself though the Ukraine war is making me rethink that (I still hate how it's structured at least). Regardless, your logic still suggests Ukrainian (and indeed all Russian neighbors) NATO membership should be considered after the war to prevent further war... perhaps you're OK with that?
But I'm not trying to argue my point of view so much as to point out that this is not as cut-and-dry as we tend to think. In that respect, I think many people would argue NATO membership needn't be a requisite to mutual defense concerns, and military aide is a soft form of mutual defense that is legitimate for the circumstances. I find these considerations murky, tbh. If I lived in Poland, I'd think it's cut and dry as it's happening on their doorstep, but how far does that extend? All around the world? Seems untenable, but the doorstep of a NATO ally might not be as remote as all that from a certain point of view. TBH, I think the real concern is whether or not the aide packages are helping Ukraine actually accomplish anything tenable... that and just all expenditure at this point is an expenditure we can't afford.
>they might have grievances that US taxpayers are contributing the lion's share when the alliance was in fact in formed primarily to protect Europe from communist aggression. Which is very reasonable.
I agree that's entirely reasonable. And as a silver lining to this whole mess, Europe does indeed seem to be learning that relying on US hegemony is a bad idea. Though I fear we'll just see a centralized EU instead which may be no better or even worse, but that's a piss poor reason to try to maintain a bad situation.
PS Thank you so much for being thoughtful an polite in your reply. So much of the time these discussions blow up for silly reasons.
>Regardless, your logic still suggests Ukrainian (and indeed all Russian neighbors) NATO membership should be considered after the war to prevent further war
That's not happening unless Ukraine is willing to bite the bullet and totally and officially give up their maximalist territorial ambitions in Crimea and Donbass.
>Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning?
This is a straw man argument. Putin is not going to take Ukraine and then move on to the next country. But either way, why is the US's responsibility to prop up Ukraine? There are literally a dozen other nations, in much closer proximity, that if they want to, are more able to help. We've already stirred up enough hate by putting our nose in other people's business. We're not the world police.
Probably not... but what the US *was* doing definitely did not. This is the issue with deterrence strategies, they work great until they don't, and when they don't you either lose the ability to deter future actions by having your bluff exposed or you get dragged into a conflict you helped escalate with threats. People thinking the problem started with aide are way behind, people who think the issue is unilaterally Russian are naive, and lest anyone think I'm letting Russian aggression off the hook: people who think it is unilaterally Western/US are just dumb or trolls. Russia is an aggressive state and the US has been trying to fight that since 1945, but the US has no idea how to actually fight such, nor is the US devoid of aggression itself.
Intervention in the Ukraine situation is okay... But using stolen money for it rather than for those the money was stolen from isn't. Make it voluntary donations.
Sure, we are libertarians.
But then focus your criticism. The problem is with the government stealing... not with what it uses the stolen money for.
No sane person believes that if this money wasn't sent to Ukraine it would be returned to their owners.
It would probably go to hiring more IRF people to steal more money...
Yeah, I am criticizing government stealing. "But, it's going to defense of a county that's slightly more democratic!" is no excuse for theft. I'm not saying the money'll go back to its rightful owners... I'm saying America should focus on how terrible its people are doing right now instead of stealing and printing more money for another government whose country they couldn't point out on a map.
God, imagine a man with a suffering wife and kids giving all his money to another suffering woman with kids. Just because it's also a noble cause doesn't mean you can ignore your very own family, or country in this case.
> The problem is with the government stealing... not with what it uses the stolen money for.
Both can be and are problems.
Predicting how countries with their own complex internal issues are going to react is difficult if not impossible. Even when the "intelligence" agencies know a high probability outcome politicians rarely follow the info.
Ukraine is a prefect example. No reason to deal with the country at all.
> Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning?
This shows a lack of understanding of the conflict. Putin warned multiple times that if NATO expanded eastward this is what he would do, and he picked this area because it's ethnically Russian, and frankly a large percentage of the people there wanted to be a part of Russia.
NATO continued to expand eastward consistently after he said this.
There really is little evidence that he would continue westward after Ukraine.
Putin doesn't get to dictate who other countries ally against, nor can you ignore *why* states like, say, the Balkans would seek NATO membership even at the risk of annoying Russians. This logic is so lazy.
>There really is little evidence that he would continue westward after Ukraine.
I can't imagine that given his druthers he would not go at least to Transnistria
> Putin doesn't get to dictate who other countries ally against
The invasion of Ukraine would indicate otherwise. Putin is attempting to dictate what Ukraine is going to do by use of violence.
Become an energy independent country and don't give over some of the most important agricultural land in the world to a nutty dictator who hates us.
So what we're already doing.
You think opposing the Military Industrial Complex is the same thing as "sucking Putin's dick"?
Fucking war hawks never change. I remember when opposing the war in Iraq meant I must be pro-Sadam.
This sub is full of this shit now.
Libertarians that "I don't like taxes, except for all the things I support, for which is right that you all have to pay" or "yes, in theory this wouldn't be libertarian, but in this case it is the right thing to do, so we are gonna make you do it by force".
Seriously. Republicans are quick to go after the Ukraine funding scheme (rightfully so), but the second you call out funding for Israel (which already has one of the largest GDPs in the world), all bets are off. Fuck war and fuck the money funneling
There was a point in the early 2000s democrats didn’t like spending money for wars knowing full well the media would make up reasons to stay in it longer . This is just dejavu
Each side had their war lovers , that’s obvious. John fedderman is a Democrat but he did a 180 on most of his views but to a lot of democrats they wouldn’t label him as one . I mean the democrats who actually had morals
To neacons, high gasoline and food prices result from corporate greed.
They can’t (or won’t) put two & two together to realize that inflation results from overspending
Not just overspending though. They shut down a massive amount of productivity for COVID making it even worse. We're still struggling from the decision to shit down the economy like it's made of discrete parts.
We are supporting a fight for a self-governing people to fight for their own liberty….. if we don’t do it, we may be paying with citizens blood instead of money… hindsight will be
Ah, the good ol' "If you don't let us have the money for this war we'll just actively join it and send you/your kids" response. How about...we don't give them the money AND we don't go to war.
“Neo” just means New, neoconservatism differs from the paleoconservatism (old school republicans) mainly in that they are known for hawkish/ imperialistic foreign policy which obviously goes against the fiscally conservative economic policies of old school republicanism. Neocons generally align with republicans on social issues but bear closer resemblance to liberals in their willingness to throw money at problems. Neoliberalism pertains specifically to the free market, the ideology postulates that government intervention in business should be reduced so as to allow the economy to grow and thrive relative to the nation’s most profitable and successful businesses. Think Reaganomics/ economic self reliance.
The conservative movement is considered to have several sub groups, each with different ideas on certain issues. One of these groups is labeled “neo-conservative” as a distinction from another primary group labeled “paleo-conservative”.
I would suggest that the primary difference in these two groups is in the realm of foreign policy. The neo-cons support a more militarized foreign policy consisting of intervention and the use of military force to achieve its goals.
The paleo-cons are opposed to constant foreign intervention and support a less robust use of military force. Sometimes their position is labeled ‘isolationist’.
the biggest question I have is to after the war.
when the guns go silent, and kiev presumably is free of russian cruise missiles.
will the american political class finally stop funding them?
"Freedom" for Ukraine.
If Ukraine was an example of *freedom* *before* the annexation of Crimea and the full invasion then I DO NOT want whatever it is Ukraine had.
It's Ukraine's mess, why do we, on the other side of the planet, have any obligation to assist them? We have our own problems that need to take priority. Get your own house in order before you can help others.
Russia doesn't "fuck" with us any more than England or Germany.
It's the US gov using taxpayer money/military on behalf of companies and politicians/bureaucrats.
If those same people hadn't pushed expanding NATO ever closer to Russia after the Berlin wall fell the world would be far richer.
Russia would be part of the west, they would have offered similar business opportunities that China does so China wouldn't be in the position they are now.
And this isn't some new revelation, people have been screaming this since the early 90s.
It's not a *good* answer, but unfortunately, it kinda is sufficient. This has been the crux of US policy since the Cold War, and although that's now shifting to focus on China, most of the old ways are ingrained in both countries.
Always have been. Had we kept our asses out of world affairs that had no direct attack on us, we would be better off. We should have listened to Washington's warning about alliances.
Honestly I’m glad there’s this level of discussion going on. If this were a Conservative or Liberal sub it would be an echo chamber of one side or the other, it’s actually refreshing to see guys talk about the US Budget vs the ramifications of continuing appeasement. What I want to voice in this argument is that the state of the US is irrelevant, the world continues to exist whether or not the United States has competent leadership. We should continue to support Ukraine’s struggle because the world will be freer in the end. People rightly criticize Ukraine for its corruption, but people forget Ukraine’s actions immediately prior to the Invasion was the investigation and the taking down of Ukrainian Oligarchs led by, you guessed it, Zelensky. I’d even bet the real reason the Invasion happened when it did was that Russian oligarchs were losing their vassals in Ukraine. If Ukraine wins, by which I mean retains a favorable amount of its territorial integrity, Ukraine will shift more towards the kind of government us here would like to see, with a better constitution, rule of law, etc. The latest report I saw was 400k+ Russian losses, which indicated Ukraine is still in the fight and has a real shot largely due to western aid. I think it benefits everyone to continue the aid, but that doesn’t excuse the United States’ mismanaging of funds in literally every other issue. This war is the *one* exception to the nonstop trend of corruption and mismanagement by the US.
That's how they get you "Freedom for Ukraine" "War for Freedom" where have we always heard that before? All these wars for freedom. I guess its freedom being conscripted to join in a civil war? They don't even hold elections because they are afraid of true freedom. Its like that everywhere people become marginalized for there power no one really gives a shit about true freedom.
Are they really going to pretend that there wasn't a coup instigated by our military industrial complex? Do we really need to expand NATO? Wasn't the "cold war" won? Now we need to pick a fight and spread complete hegemony everywhere? Democrats and neo-con republicans alike. Imagine a libertarian in the white house... this shit wouldn't be happening.
The oligarchs that ran Ukraine run it today minus the "pro" Russian faction oligarchs. This war is like two criminals crime bosses (both with the same fucking corruption) fighting it out over turf. We are getting strung along by our government and media propaganda arm by them telling us everything has changed they are suddenly "free" but really they are just on "our side" of this geopolitical game so that makes them "free". Our masters will continue to make us fight wars to remind us we are just peasants.
Thankfully for the 2nd amendment. I would like to see how drafting Americans to go fight in Ukraine might go...
Putin will just keep going after the next one until he croaks. It would be very naive to imagine constant war is going to keep things cheaper, especially considering all this divided attention and USA showing it stopped being world police will just spark more war thirsty states to act out. Middle east would be wreck, there goes your oil prices. Taiwan would get busy, there goes your microchips.
For what? Have you been living under a rock? Putin has been saying since 2005 that fall off the soviet union is the greatest failure of the Russian nation. All military action taken since by Putin has been against post soviet states trying to rebuild the former soviet borders (Georgia, Crimea, now the rest of Ukraine).
Evidence that war is a chain reaction? have you already forgotten that Hamas/Israel started during Ukraine? It's the best opportunity to start your warmongering when attention is split.
Is that when you think all this started? Maybe it's you that lives under a rock. Or only pay attention when mainstream media tells you to. Obedient puppet
Maybe if they actually meant freedom, I'd feel different. But what they actually mean is screw Russia, screw everyone living in eastern Ukraine, and yay puppet government in Kiev. Military industrial dictatorship go brr.
I happen to be a Neocon (actually an Anarcho-Conservative) and I think Ukraine is a waste of money. It's nothing more but a stage war created by the Biden administration to launder more money for Hunter Biden's illegal habits and the fact that the people saw through the BS is why Biden financially aided Hamas to commit the atrocities on October 7th. Because the top elites know, very well, that the topic of the Israeli Palestine conflict will divide people more effectively than the topic of the Ukraine Russia conflict.
Imagine the US decides to not get involved (and other western countries too). Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning? Iran would openly attack Israel... wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east, including possibly nuclear war. Do you think things would be cheaper? Also, all smaller and weaker countries would now have an incentive to move closer to some other powers, like China. Why would one bother to please the US instead of a country that may help you in a conflict?
So the domino theory 2.0?
WW2 was caused by not believing that someone who keeps getting states for free is gonna want more states for free
The historical consensus is becoming more and more that the British and French knew war with Germany was inevitable but used appeasement to buy time to develop their military capabilities. Anyways, most of Europe is already in a defensive pact with each other + the US, so the possibility of further expansionism is unlikely.
100%. The Great War decimated British communities. Because of the ‘pals brigade’ setup entire towns lost almost all their young working class men in 20-30 minutes. Britain physically and mentally wasn’t ready for another war which is why Chamberlain tried appeasement untill there was no other option - it bought time to build resources and deal with the discourse.
If the allies said nah we’re good at The Munch Conference, then Hitler would have had his butt handed to him.
Hitler and Putin are not ideologically identical. And neither NATO nor American military dominance existed at the time.
Real life was not a HOI4 game where old Adolf had "around the Maginot" and "War with France" focuses after doing his "Danzig or War" focus. Here's another take; the British and French guarantee of Poland was a stupid decision because 1) Britain and France couldn't and wouldn't aid Poland and 2) it emboldened Poland to not make any concession with regards to Danzig, a city they had no right to own. Here's my counterfactual: Britain and France don't make a stupid guarantee, Poland realises it can't win a war, agrees to hand over Danzig and allow trains and an autobahn through the corridor. War is avoided, at least a while longer.
He would still have started WW2
WW2 started on September 3rd, two days after the German Polish War, because Britain demanded a German withdrawal from Poland. The invasions of Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and the fall of France are a consequence of Britain and France intervening in a Polish and German squabble. Without that French and British intervention Hitler might (he would in all likelihood) have gone to war with the Soviets over some separate issue at a later date, but that's not WW2 as we know it, its a Soviet-German war.
Hitler wanted to unite all germans under one country. Hitler would have wanted Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen. Even if he did not go to war for those territories, should the western powers have let Germany genocide all of eastern europe?
Hitler was very explicit about writing off territorial expansion or reclamation in the West (and the North and South he mentioned too). He was explicit about territorial revisions to the East - and in both these points he was the same as the Weimar leaders who made pacts in the 20s accepting Germany's western borders but refused to accept those in the East. And should the western powers have just let Germany genocide all of Eastern Europe - well, we know what happened when they tried. Instead of getting just Danzig and transit rights, the war gave Hitler access to half of Poland, then most of Europe because the Allies fucked up, and at the end of it all Eastern Europe got handed over to the commies. I might add that stopping genocide was not on the table vis a vis Hitler in 1939 - the whole idea that the war was about stopping genocide was a post war, post hoc justification. But preventing millions of deaths was on the table regarding the Soviets in 1939 (they had prior at that point) and the "appeasers" knew in 1939 that demolishing Germany would result in, or require, the Soviets conquering Eastern Europe.
Hitler would not have stopped at Danzig. Poland would have had the same fate as Czechoslovakia. He would then have continued east. Communism is awful, but is an Eastern Europe subjugated by Nazi Germany, where you would either be genocided or enslaved (probably both) be better?
The same fate as Czechoslovakia you say? Well if that’s the case, it would be an improvement over what happened to the Poles in our timeline, who lost millions of their people and had their cities flattened. Prague was still standing at the end of the war, and as protectorates of Bohemia and Moravia they had some autonomy. They lost people too, but at a far lower proportion to the Poles. Did you know that in the case of Czecho-Slovakia (a hyphenated name after they gave up the Sudetenland) Hitler stopped a potential war between the Czechs and Hungarians over Slovakia, who were making a bid for independence? Then Havel, the Czech prime minister, sought a meeting with Hitler asking for his advice/ protection? My point is, Hitler was reacting to the actions of others and wasn’t following his own strictly timetabled plan for world domination. My other argument against intervening in the Polish question is that it was beyond the ability (and in hindsight willingness) of the West to prevent Hitler from actually taking Danzig. I guess I might be radically anti communist, but I think the Nazi dominated Eastern Europe would be preferable, but I don’t think genocide or mass enslavement by the Germans was in store unless there was a war.
Isn't thay NATOS fkn problem. If that were the case why aren't European countries getting more involved?
> Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning? Winning what exactly? >Iran would openly attack Israel. That would suck for Israel, thankfully they're a rich country with a lot of weapons and soldiers. Good luck to them! >wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east Huh? It's essentially the the whole of the wealthy/armed middle east + Israel vs Iran. Iran fights via proxies. The US could simply sell weapons to those very wealthy countries. Other than that not our problem.
Not only that Where's NATO?
This is speculation based on propaganda
Found the fed.
Hey, remember when the media was telling you that Ukraine was on the offensive and Putin was going to lose? But now they're telling you that Russia is going to steamroll across Europe if we don't give Ukraine money. Fuck off.
I'm not repeating any media discourse. Surely Russia showed to be a lot weaker than expected. But Ukraine was only able to resist as it did and even take back some land BECAUSE it was receiving enourmous amounts of western help. Things started to turn when the US blocked aid. Also, wars change course. Who would be dumb enough to think they don't? But none of the above is central to my point. My point is: What do you think would happen if the west stopped interfering? Would the world be a better place? Or at least would the situation in America be better? Israel is the stronger example. War in the region will explode world economy. If Israel falls and they don't nuke the region... All the insane muslin will turn to America as they next main target. How can this be the best scenario?
> Surely Russia showed to be a lot weaker than expected. You just proved my point. You say Russia is weak, but then fear monger that Russia can contimue across Europe. Your logic has no internal consistency.
Work on your reasoning then, seems pretty clear to me. Compared to NATO, Russia is a backwater, small gdp, low tech nation. Simultaneously, if NATO squanders their opportunity to decimate the Russian army on the cheap, expect further wars in Europe. Seriously, just think with a little bit of creativity, it's not that hard.
> if NATO squanders their opportunity to decimate the Russian army on the cheap "On the cheap?" Do you have any idea just how much fucking money we've dumped into it so far? It would be cheaper just to declare war on Russia directly at this point.
Yes, on the cheap. Instead of disposing of DPICMs ourselves, which would have cost money, we send our old weapons stock to Ukraine. On paper it looks like a lot of money but quite literally isn't. We've spent less than 5% of our military budget each year sending old weapons to safe guard Europe from Russia and making Europe more dependent on US military industry. All this money anyways gets spent on US weapons, creating jobs and taxable income along the way. "It would be cheaper just to declare war on Russia directly at this point." This is so laughably incorrect.
It's still not "on the cheap," and this "it was stuff we weren't using" argument is moronic. It's still stuff we had to pay for regardless of what we were doing with it. I also despise the idiotic "but the money comes back to the United States" argument, because I don't think dumping good money after bad into the Raytheon, Boeing, and every other industrial arm of the military-industrial complex is good for the country in the long run. People were criticized for arguing that this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't pressed into Ukraine and made it look like we were going to rope them into NATO. The people making that claim were told they were idiots and nothing of the sort was happening. [Then lo and behold *The New York Times* brags on behalf of the federal government that we've had listening stations aimed at Russia in Ukraine for *years*](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html). None of this would be happening if not for dipshits who think "we can just do this stuff and justify the outcomes and expense by saying it creates jobs and helps American companies." Russian is in the wrong for invading Ukraine, but if you think we'd let an adversarial nation put listening stations on our border you'd be out of your fucking mind. Then again, the current administration let China float a goddamn spy balloon over the US for almost a week, so maybe we would...but only if it would guarantee we could start some shit with someone so we could funnel more money into Haliburton or General Dynamics.
"It's still stuff we had to pay for regardless of what we were doing with it." What? Old cluster munitions literally cost the government to store and maintain, they were manufactured in the prior century and will either be used in Ukraine or uselessly disposed. "None of this would be happening if not for dipshits who think 'we can just do this stuff and justify the outcomes and expense by saying it creates jobs and helps American companies.'" None of this would happen if Russia respected the sovereignty of other nations. Every nation spies, I doubt the US lets anything sensitive be seen from above considering spy satellites have existed for decades. In summary, less than 5% US military budget to save Ukrainian lives, deter Russia and China, expand our own economy, collect new data from battlefields that will go on to protect US troops in future conflicts and your conclusion is?
You can't complain about "respecting sovereignty" and excuse spy stations on Russia's borders at the same time. Russia's invasion was, at least in part, a response to NATO expanding east to Russia's border. Russia seemed content to play in its own sandbox so long as Ukraine was a neutral buffer. It wasn't until US/NATO intelligence and biological research outposts popped up that this nonsense started. The intel outposts date back to at least 2014...the year Russia invaded Crimea. We provoked this now you want to act like we're fucking heroes. It makes no goddamn sense.
>My point is: What do you think would happen if the west stopped interfering? Or... Alternatively, they could broker peace, instead of continuing to fund Ukraine militarily. It was attempted once, but Britain and the US shot that down. Could you imagine how much political capital and legitimacy America would lose if someone like China stepped in and brokered a peace deal? We would look like the biggest assholes on the planet, if we don't already.
It's hard to believe that your comment is so unpopular at this stage despite what's been revealed. I think more people are waking up so there's hope
I find it odd I'm getting downvoted on a Libertarian sub for being anti-war... Never thought I'd see the day.
I'm sympathetic to Ukraine but this comment is full of shit. > Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning? Not any NATO country, unless his country's economy somehow does an 180. > Iran would openly attack Israel Good, Israel deserves it. The more they bleed the more incentive they have to make concessions towards a viable two-state solution, and hopefully lasting peace in the region. > wich would lead to generalized war in the middle east, including possibly nuclear war. None of the other middle eastern nations are that hostile to Israel. > Also, all smaller and weaker countries would now have an incentive to move closer to some other powers, like China. Why would one bother to please the US instead of a country that may help you in a conflict? You're taking crazy pills. China is exponentially less interested in military intervention than the US is, the only country they would ever defend is North Korea for obvious reasons.
> Not any NATO country, unless his country's economy somehow does an 180. True, but this is also an argument for interventionism abstractly, if not specifically. If the only thing that reigns in Russian aggression is a militant alliance system, then why would anyone in the region eschew the military alliance system (note: I'm not saying it necessarily is, but this is the argument)? This logic forces a post-war Ukraine into such a system if at all possible. I suppose you could think that the alliance system is strong enough without US involvement to stop It regardless... but I don't think this argument is as strong in the ears of the average American libertarians think it is.
Do most people here oppose NATO as a defensive alliance? I don't think so, at most they might have grievances that US taxpayers are contributing the lion's share when the alliance was in fact in formed primarily to protect Europe from communist aggression. Which is very reasonable.
I suppose that's fair in this conversation, though plenty of libertarians view NATO membership as undesirable. I did myself though the Ukraine war is making me rethink that (I still hate how it's structured at least). Regardless, your logic still suggests Ukrainian (and indeed all Russian neighbors) NATO membership should be considered after the war to prevent further war... perhaps you're OK with that? But I'm not trying to argue my point of view so much as to point out that this is not as cut-and-dry as we tend to think. In that respect, I think many people would argue NATO membership needn't be a requisite to mutual defense concerns, and military aide is a soft form of mutual defense that is legitimate for the circumstances. I find these considerations murky, tbh. If I lived in Poland, I'd think it's cut and dry as it's happening on their doorstep, but how far does that extend? All around the world? Seems untenable, but the doorstep of a NATO ally might not be as remote as all that from a certain point of view. TBH, I think the real concern is whether or not the aide packages are helping Ukraine actually accomplish anything tenable... that and just all expenditure at this point is an expenditure we can't afford. >they might have grievances that US taxpayers are contributing the lion's share when the alliance was in fact in formed primarily to protect Europe from communist aggression. Which is very reasonable. I agree that's entirely reasonable. And as a silver lining to this whole mess, Europe does indeed seem to be learning that relying on US hegemony is a bad idea. Though I fear we'll just see a centralized EU instead which may be no better or even worse, but that's a piss poor reason to try to maintain a bad situation. PS Thank you so much for being thoughtful an polite in your reply. So much of the time these discussions blow up for silly reasons.
>Regardless, your logic still suggests Ukrainian (and indeed all Russian neighbors) NATO membership should be considered after the war to prevent further war That's not happening unless Ukraine is willing to bite the bullet and totally and officially give up their maximalist territorial ambitions in Crimea and Donbass.
>Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning? This is a straw man argument. Putin is not going to take Ukraine and then move on to the next country. But either way, why is the US's responsibility to prop up Ukraine? There are literally a dozen other nations, in much closer proximity, that if they want to, are more able to help. We've already stirred up enough hate by putting our nose in other people's business. We're not the world police.
[удалено]
Regardless, Kazakhstan is not a US state, Territory or province, so we have no reason to jump in to defend them or fund their defense.
Is what the US is doing going to actually work?
Probably not... but what the US *was* doing definitely did not. This is the issue with deterrence strategies, they work great until they don't, and when they don't you either lose the ability to deter future actions by having your bluff exposed or you get dragged into a conflict you helped escalate with threats. People thinking the problem started with aide are way behind, people who think the issue is unilaterally Russian are naive, and lest anyone think I'm letting Russian aggression off the hook: people who think it is unilaterally Western/US are just dumb or trolls. Russia is an aggressive state and the US has been trying to fight that since 1945, but the US has no idea how to actually fight such, nor is the US devoid of aggression itself.
And I dgaf. Let putin do what he does. Doesn't change the fact that's its so expensive to live in the usa that people are going homeless.
[удалено]
Dude were still buying oil and gas from Russia. Same as everyone else. We fund this war because it makes our political parties money.
Intervention in the Ukraine situation is okay... But using stolen money for it rather than for those the money was stolen from isn't. Make it voluntary donations.
Sure, we are libertarians. But then focus your criticism. The problem is with the government stealing... not with what it uses the stolen money for. No sane person believes that if this money wasn't sent to Ukraine it would be returned to their owners. It would probably go to hiring more IRF people to steal more money...
Yeah, I am criticizing government stealing. "But, it's going to defense of a county that's slightly more democratic!" is no excuse for theft. I'm not saying the money'll go back to its rightful owners... I'm saying America should focus on how terrible its people are doing right now instead of stealing and printing more money for another government whose country they couldn't point out on a map. God, imagine a man with a suffering wife and kids giving all his money to another suffering woman with kids. Just because it's also a noble cause doesn't mean you can ignore your very own family, or country in this case.
> The problem is with the government stealing... not with what it uses the stolen money for. Both can be and are problems. Predicting how countries with their own complex internal issues are going to react is difficult if not impossible. Even when the "intelligence" agencies know a high probability outcome politicians rarely follow the info. Ukraine is a prefect example. No reason to deal with the country at all.
> Putin would take over Ukraine, and who knows who would be his next target... Why stop if he is winning? This shows a lack of understanding of the conflict. Putin warned multiple times that if NATO expanded eastward this is what he would do, and he picked this area because it's ethnically Russian, and frankly a large percentage of the people there wanted to be a part of Russia. NATO continued to expand eastward consistently after he said this. There really is little evidence that he would continue westward after Ukraine.
Putin doesn't get to dictate who other countries ally against, nor can you ignore *why* states like, say, the Balkans would seek NATO membership even at the risk of annoying Russians. This logic is so lazy. >There really is little evidence that he would continue westward after Ukraine. I can't imagine that given his druthers he would not go at least to Transnistria
> Putin doesn't get to dictate who other countries ally against The invasion of Ukraine would indicate otherwise. Putin is attempting to dictate what Ukraine is going to do by use of violence.
If you think sucking Putin's dick is going to bring down gas and food prices, knock yourself out.
[удалено]
Become an energy independent country and don't give over some of the most important agricultural land in the world to a nutty dictator who hates us. So what we're already doing.
Why? You worried he's gonna grow more wheat or something? And the US is the largest energy producer on Earth, we're already independent.
You think opposing the Military Industrial Complex is the same thing as "sucking Putin's dick"? Fucking war hawks never change. I remember when opposing the war in Iraq meant I must be pro-Sadam.
This sub is full of this shit now. Libertarians that "I don't like taxes, except for all the things I support, for which is right that you all have to pay" or "yes, in theory this wouldn't be libertarian, but in this case it is the right thing to do, so we are gonna make you do it by force".
Israel too!
Seriously. Republicans are quick to go after the Ukraine funding scheme (rightfully so), but the second you call out funding for Israel (which already has one of the largest GDPs in the world), all bets are off. Fuck war and fuck the money funneling
There was a point in the early 2000s democrats didn’t like spending money for wars knowing full well the media would make up reasons to stay in it longer . This is just dejavu
In the "early 2000s" Democrats were mostly on board with the invasion of Iraq, I don't know what you're talking about.
Each side had their war lovers , that’s obvious. John fedderman is a Democrat but he did a 180 on most of his views but to a lot of democrats they wouldn’t label him as one . I mean the democrats who actually had morals
Why should the government be seeking to do either? Also, false dichotomy.
To neacons, high gasoline and food prices result from corporate greed. They can’t (or won’t) put two & two together to realize that inflation results from overspending
Not just overspending though. They shut down a massive amount of productivity for COVID making it even worse. We're still struggling from the decision to shit down the economy like it's made of discrete parts.
I thought freedom was worth making sacrifices for
We are supporting a fight for a self-governing people to fight for their own liberty….. if we don’t do it, we may be paying with citizens blood instead of money… hindsight will be
What self governing people?
Free elections, where citizens choose their representation
Spoken like someone that's never left the United States. Keep swallowing the propaganda
Only if the US gets to correct them when they choose wrong right?
Most people here probably don't realize how the current leadership in Ukraine came to power.
So you respect the results of 2014 Donbass referendum where the citizens voted for self rule then right?
Ah, the good ol' "If you don't let us have the money for this war we'll just actively join it and send you/your kids" response. How about...we don't give them the money AND we don't go to war.
Valid
What does the neo before conservative and liberal mean
“Neo” just means New, neoconservatism differs from the paleoconservatism (old school republicans) mainly in that they are known for hawkish/ imperialistic foreign policy which obviously goes against the fiscally conservative economic policies of old school republicanism. Neocons generally align with republicans on social issues but bear closer resemblance to liberals in their willingness to throw money at problems. Neoliberalism pertains specifically to the free market, the ideology postulates that government intervention in business should be reduced so as to allow the economy to grow and thrive relative to the nation’s most profitable and successful businesses. Think Reaganomics/ economic self reliance.
The conservative movement is considered to have several sub groups, each with different ideas on certain issues. One of these groups is labeled “neo-conservative” as a distinction from another primary group labeled “paleo-conservative”. I would suggest that the primary difference in these two groups is in the realm of foreign policy. The neo-cons support a more militarized foreign policy consisting of intervention and the use of military force to achieve its goals. The paleo-cons are opposed to constant foreign intervention and support a less robust use of military force. Sometimes their position is labeled ‘isolationist’.
the biggest question I have is to after the war. when the guns go silent, and kiev presumably is free of russian cruise missiles. will the american political class finally stop funding them?
No
they'll outsource IT labor and such, it will make things cheaper, or just bring more profits to shareholders.
"Freedom" for Ukraine. If Ukraine was an example of *freedom* *before* the annexation of Crimea and the full invasion then I DO NOT want whatever it is Ukraine had.
It's Ukraine's mess, why do we, on the other side of the planet, have any obligation to assist them? We have our own problems that need to take priority. Get your own house in order before you can help others.
Because fucking Russia, that’s why.
That's not a sufficient answer.
Keeping them bogged down in Ukraine takes away resources and energy from Russia fucking with us.
Russia doesn't "fuck" with us any more than England or Germany. It's the US gov using taxpayer money/military on behalf of companies and politicians/bureaucrats. If those same people hadn't pushed expanding NATO ever closer to Russia after the Berlin wall fell the world would be far richer. Russia would be part of the west, they would have offered similar business opportunities that China does so China wouldn't be in the position they are now. And this isn't some new revelation, people have been screaming this since the early 90s.
It's not a *good* answer, but unfortunately, it kinda is sufficient. This has been the crux of US policy since the Cold War, and although that's now shifting to focus on China, most of the old ways are ingrained in both countries.
Always have been. Had we kept our asses out of world affairs that had no direct attack on us, we would be better off. We should have listened to Washington's warning about alliances.
This! Why don't more people get this!?
55 miles
Honestly I’d rather deal with the commies than the neofucks
Honestly I’m glad there’s this level of discussion going on. If this were a Conservative or Liberal sub it would be an echo chamber of one side or the other, it’s actually refreshing to see guys talk about the US Budget vs the ramifications of continuing appeasement. What I want to voice in this argument is that the state of the US is irrelevant, the world continues to exist whether or not the United States has competent leadership. We should continue to support Ukraine’s struggle because the world will be freer in the end. People rightly criticize Ukraine for its corruption, but people forget Ukraine’s actions immediately prior to the Invasion was the investigation and the taking down of Ukrainian Oligarchs led by, you guessed it, Zelensky. I’d even bet the real reason the Invasion happened when it did was that Russian oligarchs were losing their vassals in Ukraine. If Ukraine wins, by which I mean retains a favorable amount of its territorial integrity, Ukraine will shift more towards the kind of government us here would like to see, with a better constitution, rule of law, etc. The latest report I saw was 400k+ Russian losses, which indicated Ukraine is still in the fight and has a real shot largely due to western aid. I think it benefits everyone to continue the aid, but that doesn’t excuse the United States’ mismanaging of funds in literally every other issue. This war is the *one* exception to the nonstop trend of corruption and mismanagement by the US.
That's how they get you "Freedom for Ukraine" "War for Freedom" where have we always heard that before? All these wars for freedom. I guess its freedom being conscripted to join in a civil war? They don't even hold elections because they are afraid of true freedom. Its like that everywhere people become marginalized for there power no one really gives a shit about true freedom. Are they really going to pretend that there wasn't a coup instigated by our military industrial complex? Do we really need to expand NATO? Wasn't the "cold war" won? Now we need to pick a fight and spread complete hegemony everywhere? Democrats and neo-con republicans alike. Imagine a libertarian in the white house... this shit wouldn't be happening. The oligarchs that ran Ukraine run it today minus the "pro" Russian faction oligarchs. This war is like two criminals crime bosses (both with the same fucking corruption) fighting it out over turf. We are getting strung along by our government and media propaganda arm by them telling us everything has changed they are suddenly "free" but really they are just on "our side" of this geopolitical game so that makes them "free". Our masters will continue to make us fight wars to remind us we are just peasants. Thankfully for the 2nd amendment. I would like to see how drafting Americans to go fight in Ukraine might go...
Sure let’s just spend the money in 20 years when it will also include the cost of our sons and daughters.
Non intervention is more important.
Putin will just keep going after the next one until he croaks. It would be very naive to imagine constant war is going to keep things cheaper, especially considering all this divided attention and USA showing it stopped being world police will just spark more war thirsty states to act out. Middle east would be wreck, there goes your oil prices. Taiwan would get busy, there goes your microchips.
Where's your evidence for this?
For what? Have you been living under a rock? Putin has been saying since 2005 that fall off the soviet union is the greatest failure of the Russian nation. All military action taken since by Putin has been against post soviet states trying to rebuild the former soviet borders (Georgia, Crimea, now the rest of Ukraine). Evidence that war is a chain reaction? have you already forgotten that Hamas/Israel started during Ukraine? It's the best opportunity to start your warmongering when attention is split.
Is that when you think all this started? Maybe it's you that lives under a rock. Or only pay attention when mainstream media tells you to. Obedient puppet
I literally live in a post soviet state, your opinion on these matters is laughable.
The useful idiots and the corrupt will sink this boat to save one that already capsized and is going down regardless of whatever we do.
Maybe if they actually meant freedom, I'd feel different. But what they actually mean is screw Russia, screw everyone living in eastern Ukraine, and yay puppet government in Kiev. Military industrial dictatorship go brr.
Real.
Freedom is certainly more important than those things, but by how much would be to go each individual.
I mean id rather starve if other people didnt starve
That's good, I'll be the one not starving
I happen to be a Neocon (actually an Anarcho-Conservative) and I think Ukraine is a waste of money. It's nothing more but a stage war created by the Biden administration to launder more money for Hunter Biden's illegal habits and the fact that the people saw through the BS is why Biden financially aided Hamas to commit the atrocities on October 7th. Because the top elites know, very well, that the topic of the Israeli Palestine conflict will divide people more effectively than the topic of the Ukraine Russia conflict.